WARNING: This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
    There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
    Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.

OPINION ONLY

Some key documents

This magazine seems to have been especially useful to the Tobacco Institute.

1966 May 9: Edward DeHart of Hill & Knowlton has managed to get Barron's Magazine, the National Buisness and Financial Weekly, to run an editorial (created by H&K and the Tobacco Institute) which is "highly crtical of the government's campaign against smoking."

    They must have bribed the editorial writer or paid the magazine, because, many years later, when caught out planting the "True Magazine" article, they were confident that the Barron Magazine editorial wouldn't be exposed. [See below]

1967 Jan: Clements President of Tobacco Institute, Annual Report

During the past year, we have had some successes. You have seen the fruits of some of our efforts in Barron's magazine , in Alice Widener's columns and magazine, in the New York Daily News, the Wall Street Journal, The National Observer, Esquire, in Jack Maxwell's article in Printer's Ink, in Jack Kilpatrick columns, and in the Tobacco Reporter.

    Our regular distribution of favorable scientific articles, together with background explanation, has brought some pluses. For example, Dr Hiram Langston's editorial, "Etiology by Edict" papers questioning the theories about polonium and smoking, benzpyrene, and "tar" and nicotine:

1968 April 15: William Kloepfer commented in a Tobacco Institute memo to Earle Clements (also copied to the Committee of Counsel members) following the expose of the source of the highly-distorted "True magazine" article by the Ronald Kessler of the Wall Street Journal.

[First paragraph is REDACTED]

• Our 1968 public relations program requires substantial revision, to a degree still uncertain.
• Our basic position in the cigarette controversy is subject to the charge, and maybe subject to a finding, that we are making false or misleading statements to promote the sale of cigarettes.
• With our ability somewhat reduced to "reopen" the cigarette controversy through public communications projects, current policy discussions with Administration and Congressional sources take on even greater importance.

    Well-meant cooperation by True and the cigarette industry in the promotion of the article has been characterized as deceptive by some of the above persons and organizations, and in subsequent editorial comment in Advertising Age and other publications read especially in advertising and public relations circles.

    It can be argued that these rebuttals and reactions have been more harmful to the industry than if we had taken no action with respect to the True article. Certainly Hill and Knowlton's employment of Mr. Frank and True's change of editors contributed to the plausibility of our critics' statements in this case. But such unknown and unforeseen events can occur in the course of any of our projects.

It should be noted that our earlier project, the advertisement of the Barron's editorial, escaped noticeable rebuttal. The editorial will be remembered, however, as an independent criticism of government activity, with no reasonable suspicion possible that cigarette interests were responsible for its preparation. The contrast with the True article is obvious both as to content and suspected source.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License